One-loop electroweak corrections to e+e- into three-jets

PROCEEDINGS

°F SCIENCE

00

o
o

(N

u .
Oh.

<
(N

(N

>

^'

o

00
O

X

One-loop electroweak corrections to e+e~ into
three-jets

Carlo Michel Carloni Calame*

INFN and University of Southampton

E-mail: c . carloni-calame@phys . soton .ac.uk

Stefano Moretti

University of Southampton
E-mail:

stef ano@phys . soton . ac . uk

Fulvio PicclninI

INFN, Sezione di Pavia
E-mail: [fulvio . piccinini@pv . inf n . it

Douglas A. Ross

University of Southampton
E-mail: |dar@phys . soton .ac.uk

We describe the impact of the full one-loop Electro-Weak terms of ^(asttgjyj) entering the
electron-positron into three-jet cross-section. We include both factorisable and non-factorisable
virtual corrections, photon bremsstrahlung but not the real emission of and Z bosons. We
show preliminary results and we discuss the impact of the Electro- Weak corrections on three-jet
observables.

8th International Symposium on Radiative Corrections
October 1-5, 2007
Florence, Italy

* Speaker.

© Copyright owned by the author(s) under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Licence.

http://pos.sissa.it/

One-loop electroweak Corrections to Three-jet observables

Carlo Michel Carloni Calame

1. Three-jet Events at Leptonic Colliders

Strong (QCD) and Electro-Weak (EW) interactions are two fundamental forces of Nature,
the latter in turn unifying Electro-Magnetic (EM) and Weak interactions in the Standard Model
(SM). A clear hierarchy exists between the strength of these two interactions at the energy scales
probed by past and present high energy particle accelerators (e.g., LEP, SLC, HERA and Tevatron):
QCD forces are stronger than EW ones. This argument, however, is only valid in lowest order in
perturbation theory.

A peculiar feature in fact distinguishing QCD and EW effects in higher orders is that the latter
are enhanced by double logarithmic factors, log^(-j^), which, unlike in the former, do not cancel
for 'infrared-safe' observables [[ij, ^, ||]. The origin of these 'double logs' is well understood. It
is due to a lack of the Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg (KLN) [Q] type cancellations of Infra-Red (IR) -
both soft and collinear - virtual and real emission in higher order contributions originating from
VK* (and, possibly, Z) exchange. This is in turn a consequence of the violation of the Bloch-
Nordsieck theorem in non-Abelian theories The problem is in principle present also in
QCD. In practice, however, it has no observable consequences, because of the final averaging of
the colour degrees of freedom of partons, forced by their confinement into colourless hadrons. This
does not occur in the EW case, where the initial state has a non-Abelian charge, dictated by the
given collider beam configuration, such as in e^e^ collisions.

These logarithmic corrections are finite (unlike in QCD), as the masses of the weak gauge
bosons provide a physical cut-off for VK* and Z emission. Hence, for typical experimental reso-
lutions, softly and collinearly emitted weak bosons need not be included in the production cross-
section and one can restrict oneself to the calculation of weak effects originating from virtual
corrections and affecting a purely hadronic final state. Besides, these contributions can be isolated
in a gauge-invariant manner from EM effects at least in some specific cases, and therefore
may or may not be included in the calculation, depending on the observable being studied. As for
purely EM effects, since the (infinite) IR real photon emission cannot be resolved experimentally,
this ought to be combined with the (also infinite) virtual one, through the same order, to recover a
finite result, which is however not doubly logarithmically enhanced (as QED is an Abelian theory).

In view of all this, our aim is the computation of the full one-loop EW effects entering three-
jet production in electron-positron annihilation at any collider energy via the subprocesses e+e^ — >
7*,Z ^ qqg^. Ref. |^] tackled part of these, in fact, limitedly to the case of and Z (but not 7)
exchange and when the higher order effects arise only from initial or final state interactions (these
represent the so-called 'factorisable' corrections, i.e., those involving loops not connecting the
initial leptons to the final quarks, which are the dominant ones at ^/s = Mz, where the width of the
Z resonance provides a natural cut-off for off-shellness effects). The remainder, 'non-factorisable'
corrections, while being typically small at ^/s = Mz, are expected to play a quantitatively relevant
role as ^/s grows larger. By studying the full set of the one-loop EW corrections, we improve on
the results of Ref. in two respects: (i) we include now all the non-factorisable terms; (ii) we
also incorporate previously neglected genuine QED corrections, including photon bremsstrahlung.

'See Ref. |Q] for the corresponding one-loop corrections to the Born process e+e^ qq and Ref. ||^ for the --^ iif
component of those to e+e^ ^18S (where iif represents the number of light flavours).

2

One-loop electroweak Corrections to Three-jet observables

Carlo Michel Carloni Calame

Figure 1: Pentagon graphs. The gauge bosons in the loop can be W, Z or 7.

Combining the logarithmic enhancement associated to the genuinely weak component of the
EW corrections to the fact that as steadily decreases with energy, unhke o:em/ sin^ dw, in general,
one expects one-loop EW effects to become comparable to QCD ones at future Linear Colliders
(LCs) [ p^ ] running at TeV energy scales^. In contrast, at the Z mass peak, where logarithmic
enhancements are not effective, one-loop EW corrections are expected to appear at the percent
level, hence being of limited relevance at LEPl and SLC, where the final error on as is of the same
order or larger [11], but of crucial importance at a GigaZ stage of a future LC [^], where the relative
accuracy of as measurements is expected to be at the 0.1% level or smaller [|l2|]. On the subject of
higher order QCD effects, it should be mentioned here that a great deal of effort has recently been
devoted to evaluate two-loop contributions to the three-jet process [13] while the one-loop QCD
results have been known for quite some time [14].

As intimated, in the case of e^e^ annihilations, the most important QCD quantity to be ex-
tracted from multi-jet events is as . The confrontation of the measured value of the strong coupling
constant with that predicted by the theory through the renormalisation group evolution is an im-
portant test of the SM or else an indication of new physics, when its typical mass scale is larger
than the collider energy, so that the new particles cannot be produced as 'real' detectable states
but may manifest themselves through 'virtual' effects. Not only jet rates, but also jet shape ob-
servables would be affected. Our calculation involves the full one-loop EW corrections to three-jet
observables in electron-positron annihilations, including also non-factorisable corrections such as
the ones generated via the interference of the pentagon graphs in Fig. [l] with the tree-level ones.
Hence, our calculation not only accounts for the mentioned double logarithms, but also all single
ones as well as the finite terms arising through the complete ^(asa|^). We account for all possi-
ble flavours of (anti)quarks in the final state, with the exception of the top quark. The latter however
appears in some of the loops whenever a bbg final state is considered, in particular notice that, in
this case, we will also have to include loops involving the Higgs boson coupling to (anti)top quark
lines.

We expect that all such corrections are of a few percent at ^/s = Mz and that they grow to
a few tens of percent at LC energies. Hence, while their impact is not dramatic in the context of
LEPl and SLC physics at a GigaZ stage of future LCs they ought to be taken into account in the
experimental fits. Even more so, it is the case of future LCs running at and beyond the TeV range.

^For example, at one-loop level, in the case of the inclusive cross-section of e+e into hadrons, the QCD corrections
are of whereas the EW ones are of ^(^log^ -r^), where s is the collider CM energy squared, so that at

~ 1.5 TeV the former are identical to the latter, of order 9% or so.

3

One-loop electroweak Corrections to Three-jet observables

Carlo Michel Carloni Calame

Figure 2: Distributions of the leading jet angle and energy

0.35

Figure 3: Thrust distribution

2. Calculation and preliminary results

In this section we sketch the main features of the calculation and we present preliminary re-
sults. The detailed description of the calculation and a wider phenomenological study appeared

elsewhere 015[].

Since with respect to Refs. |§] we include QED corrections, loop diagrams can contain one
or two photons and give rise to infrared (IR) and collinear divergences. We regularise the diver-
gences by simply inserting a mass A for the photon and a mass m f for all fermions. This is also
done in the case of the bremsstrahlung contribution before integrating over the phase space for the
emitted photon. In order to check the cancellation of the IR divergences between real and virtual
corrections, we successfully verified the independence of their sum against variation of the photon
mass A. Another key feature of this calculation is the occurrence of pentagon graphs, as shown
in Fig. |l|. Such graphs involve five-point Passarino-Veltman (PV) [16] functions with up to three

powers of momenta in the numerator. We have handled these in two separate ways (with two inde-

4

One-loop electroweak Corrections to Three-jet observables

Carlo Michel Carloni Calame

pendent codes), in order to check for possible numerical instabilities. In the first case the integrals
are simply evaluated using routines in LoopTools v2.2 \^]^. In the other we use the standard
PV reduction, carried out exhaustively until only scalar pentagon integrals appear. The latter are
available in the library FF1.9 [[l9|]. A comparison of the numerical results provided by the two
codes yielded satisfactory agreement between the two methods. Also the squared amplitudes for
the real emission process have been evaluated by using two independent tools (ALPHA [EO] and

MadGraph [21]) finding perfect agreement. The integration over the three- and four-body phase
space is performed numerically by means of a Monte Carlo method, using standard importance
sampling techniques for the variance reduction.

In order to perform a preliminary analysis, we considered an e^e^ collider at ^/s = 350 GeV
and we used a realistic experimental setup: partonic momenta are clustered into jets according to
the Durham jet algorithm [ p2| ] (e.g. when yij < y,„in with ymin = 0.001), the jets are required to lie
in the central detector region 30° < Ojets < 150° and we require that the invariant mass of the jet
system is larger than 0.75 x y/s. If a real photon is present in the final state, it is clustered according
to the same algorithm, but we require that at least 3 "hadronic" jets are left at the end. Finally, we
sum over the final-state quarks.

In Figs. ^ and ^ some examples of the impact of the full EW corrections on three-jet ob-
servables are shown. The distributions are plotted in Born approximation (red line), including the
complete 1-loop EW corrections (blue) and including only the weak corrections (green). In Fig. §
the distributions of the angle (left) of the most energetic (leading) jet and the energy (right) of the
leading jet are shown. In Fig. ^ the distribution of the thrust shape variable is plotted.

Even in this limited set of observables, the impact of the EW corrections is evident. The
leading jet angle and energy distributions show clearly the effect of the purely weak and QED
corrections. The 5-6% effect on the thrust distribution indicates that the EW corrections are un-
avoidable to carry out a precise measurement of at a future LC with a 0.1% accuracy. A more
complete set of observables are discussed in detail in the paper [15].

Before concluding, it is worth noticing that this calculation can be used as a starting point (by
exploiting the crossing symmetry) to calculate the complete 1-loop EW corrections to 7*/Z+ jet
production at hadron colliders, which is a process of great interest for physics at the forthcoming
LHC. This study is under consideration.

C.M.C.C. wants to thank the organizers for the the stimulating atmosphere during the confer-
ence and its success.

References

[1] M. Kuroda, G. Moultaka and D. Schildknecht, Nucl. Phys. B350 (1991) 25;G. Degrassi and A. Sirlin,
Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 3104;A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and R. Schuster, Nucl. Phys. B452 (1995)
80;A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and T. Hahn, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 1 17;A. Denner and T. Hahn,
Nucl. Phys. B525 (1998) 27.

[2] W. Beenakker, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, R. Mertig and T. Sack, Nucl. Phys. B410 (1993)
245; Phys. Lett. B317 (1993) 622.

■'We implemented also directly in an independent fortran routine the expressions for the five point functions of
Ref. nrsll, finding agreement with LoopTools.

5

One-loop electroweak Corrections to Three-jet observables

Carlo Michel Carloni Calame

[3] P. Ciafaloni and D. ComelU, Phys. Lett. B446 (1999) 278.

[4] T. Kinoshita, J. Math. Phys. 3 (1962) 650;

T.D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. 133 (1964) 1549.

[5] F. Bloch and A. Nordsieck, Phys. Rev. 52 (1937) 54.

[6] M. Ciafaloni, P Ciafaloni and D. Comelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 4810.

[7] See, e.g.: M. Consoli and W. HoUik (conveners), in proceedings of the workshop 'Z Physics at LEPl'
(G. Altarelli, R. Kleiss and C. Verzegnassi, eds.), preprint CERN-89-08, 21 September 1989 (and
references therein).

[8] V.A. Khoze, D.J. Miller, S. Moretti and W.J. StirUng, JHEP 07 (1999) 014.

[9] E. Maina, S. Moretti, M. R. Nolten and D. A. Ross, hep-ph/0407150; hep-ph/0403269; JHEP 04

(2003) 056.

[10] A. Djouadi, J. Lykken, K. Monig, Y. Okada, M. J. Oreglia and S. Yamashita, arXiv:0709.1893

[hep-ph]; K. Abe et al, [The ACFA Linear Colhder Working Group], hep-ph/0109166; T. Abe et al,
[The American Linear Colhder Working Group], hep-ex/0 106055; hep-ex/0 106056; hep-ex/0106057;
hep-ex/0106058; J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra et al, [The ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group],
hep-ph/0106315; G. Guignard (editor), [The CLIC Study Team], preprint CERN-2000-008 (2000).

[11] G. Dissertori, talk presented at the 'XXXI International Conference on High Energy Physics',
Amsterdam, 24-31 July 2002, hep-ex/0209070 (and reference therein).

[12] M. Winter, LC Note LC-PHSM-2001-016, February 2001 (and references therein).

[13] G. Dissertori, A. Gehrmarm-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, G. Heinrich and H. Stenzel,
arXiv:0712.0327 [hep-ph]; A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover and G. Heinrich,
JHEP 0712 (2007) 094; A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover and G. Heinrich,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 132002; L.W. Garland, T. Gehrmann, E.W.N. Glover, A. Koukoutsakis and
E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B642 (2002) 227; Nucl. Phys. B627 (2002) 107.

[14] R.K. Ellis, D.A. Ross and A.E. Terrano, Nucl. Phys. B178 (1981) 421.

[15] CM. Carloni Calame, S. Moretti, F Piccinini and D.A. Ross, arXiv:0804.3771 [hep-ph]

[16] G. Passarino and M.J.G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B160 (1979) 151.

[17] T. Hahn and M. Perez- Victoria, Comput. Phys. Commun. 118 (1999) 153

[18] A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B658 (2003) 175.

[19] G.J. van Oldenborgh, Comp. Phys. Commun. 66 (1991) 1.

[20] R Caravaghos and M. Moretti, Phys. Lett. B538 (1995) 332.

[21] T. Stelzer and W.F Long, Nucl. Phys. Proc.Suppl. 37B (1994) 158.

[22] Yu.L. Dokshitzer, contribution cited in the 'Report of the Hard QCD Working Group', in Proceedings
of the workshop 'Jet Studies at LEP and HERA', Durham, December 1990, J. Phys G17 (1991) 1537;
S. Catani, Yu.L. Dokshitzer, M. Olsson, G. Tumock and B.R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B269 (1991) 432.

6